Support our work and discover more:Become a Patron!
At the end of 2019, we see that the world seems to be in turmoil with mass protests all around the globe. It’s all about inequality and androgenic climate change.
It is understandable that young adults are worried about our climate. What world are we leaving behind for our children?
Protests and riots in Chile have led to the cancellation of the World Climate Summit congress. The new face of the climate change movement, Greta Thunberg, was traveling from Europe to the Americas as part of her campaign, and while she was underway, the Summit was cancelled and moved to Spain. So this young brave girl got a ride on a yacht – all the way back again to Spain. It is as if the devil was playing a game of chess.
Does CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) Really Matter?
It would be great if the Summit would listen to us, to our discoveries, and to the consequences it might have on the entire climate debate. Today, only a minute part of the story is told. The debate is dubious and often unscientific. The debate is emotional and political. The truth is more complicated and more subtle and this is exactly what makes the discussion between both sides so difficult.
What has led to the notion that CO2 could cause climate change? Ice cores that were drilled up by the US army in the fifties showed a correlation between temperatures and CO2. That is when it all started. They discovered that CO2 and changing temperatures went hand in hand and that is how the connection between changing temperature and CO2 was made.
And because no one was able to explain the long term changing temperatures that they called glaciation cycles, the blame game was easy. To them, it was the CO2 that caused the glaciation cycles and so a convenient idea was born. Apparently, or so they think, when we pump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, we create climate warming. Simple ideas are good but not necessarily true.
The confusion is now larger than ever. It is true that a CO2 blanket blocks infrared back radiation at night. Due to its density, CO2 has the tendency to accumulate in the lower troposphere. So, when there is much CO2 present in the lower atmosphere, called the troposphere, it starts to warm up. This is an effect that we have called flash heating. You can compare flash heating with an infrared heater in your cold bathroom. The sudden removal of the CO2 blanket is the same as switching off the infrared heater in your bathroom…
If we want to lower man-made CO2 levels, we need to do this slowly. We need a phase-out plan, otherwise a massive catastrophe will await us.
The Truth is Simple and Shocking
Why Our Discovery is Crucial
This blanket of human made CO2 causes NO long term climate changes. It causes short term flash heating. This is important to know and understand. When we say short term we mean a few years up to a few decades. And when we say long term we are talking about many thousands of years.
So when the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 blanket accumulates between the troposphere and the stratosphere, what then happens with the temperature of the stratosphere? That higher part of the atmosphere – the part that is above the blanket – appears to cool down very rapidly. It is so simple. And no one seems to know why. No, that is not a joke. Climate scientists really don’t know.
- This is the core of our discovery: ΔTatm = ΔTtropo × Mtropo – ΔTstrato × Mstrato = 0
I hear you thinking: Has this anything to do with the concentrated CO2 blanket? Yes, it seems so. Because both products of temperature change and mass on both sides of the CO2 blanket result in ZERO.
According to our ideas, this discovery has the following consequences:
- if we radically reduce CO2 production, the trapped heat in the troposphere would start to warm the stratosphere. So the accumulated heat of the troposphere would rapidly leak away.
- global temperatures at ground level will start to drop radically – with catastrophic consequences.
- this will result in mass crop losses and everything else that comes with a sudden temperature drop.
The Only Option
That is why we think it is time to listen to both sides, and not only to a whining teenager who lives happily in one of the richest countries on earth.
Now, let’s go back to the ice cores where it all began. Were the temperature changes in the distant past caused by CO2? No. And why not? Because in these data, CO2 follows temperatures with a time lapse (gap) of between 300 to 1000 years. All climate scientists know this but do not have a single explanation for it. CO2 levels responded to changes in the biosphere.
CO2 has two faces:
- CO2 responds to large temperature changes in the biosphere. CO2 is a proxy for climatic changes.
- large unnatural CO2 levels in the atmosphere, emitted by humans, causes the troposphere to warm up. This is what we call flash heating. It is geologically speaking a short term effect.
And what caused these long term changes in the biosphere? Crustal deformations.
The point in the whole climate debate is this: If one takes away CO2 as the cause of the ice ages, namely the mechanism that causes cooling and warming, what happens? Nothing! If you are one of the climate deniers, and if you also deny crustal deformations, you are left with empty hands to do any serious climate science. This puts the climate deniers in a very weak position. It is time to change this and to put our proposed crustal deformation mechanism on the agenda as one of the serious options.
It is good to be aware of the nuances when the debate gets hotter and hotter.
© 2015 – by Mario Buildreps et al.
I did read this article again and now I see that you have a good point. Maybe propose this to the Dutch organisation Clintel (Guus Berkhout)?
An aspect that still most people seem to be missing is that the use of fossil fuels will be phased out in the coming decades, because we have reached the peak of oil production. You could look up some talk by for instance geologist Colin Campbell, who spent most of his career on this topic.
The concept of peak oil means that we did use the cheapest and most easily accessible part of the oil reserves and are left with the harder to access and more expensive half of the oil reserves. The energy return on invested energy (EROIE) to produce oil will go down from now on and oil production will be lower each year. Investments in oil production are also declining.
This has tremendous consequences for our modern society. We will have to live with less luxury and less consumption and it is the end to economic growth and the start of economic decline.
Currently, the financial markets are in big problems because of this, because of large amounts of debt that are linked to the idea of everlasting cheap fossil fuels. Now these markets need to adjust to the new prospect of a declining oil production. All this is the explanation for the worldwide unrest that we currently see.
Fossil fuels will not be phased out in one decade, but the use will steadily decline and we will use solar power and wind power for as long as this is possible. These also use fossil fuels for the production of solar panels and wind mills so I am not sure if the gradual phasing out of fossil fuels will be a problem for the surface temperature of the planet.
Your discovery seems to be worthwhile to share with climate scientists.